From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey
To: Maggie Keenan
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject: Dispute reference number: DBDRV-2017-6-1436 CRM:04080231
Reply-To:
Organization: LEMIS, 29 Stones Road, Dereel, VIC, Australia
Phone: +61-3-5346-1370, +61-3-5309-0418
Mobile: 0401 265 606. Use only as instructed.
WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/grog
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223
Maggie, I am now in receipt of the assessor's report from the visit of
14 December 2017. I am appalled. I don't think I have ever seen a
more amateurish or one-sided report from a supposedly qualified
"assessor". I reject all his findings.
The problem is not simply that he disagrees with me: he does it
without understanding, without qualification, and in one case without
examination.
Specifically: the issues I raise are partially of a technical nature,
requiring an engineer to assess, and partially of a legal nature,
requiring somebody with legal understanding to assess. Mr. Pritchard
is neither, as the report shows. This reflects badly on DBDRV as a
whole in choosing him. As a result, I no longer have any confidence
in DBDRV.
In addition to his lack of expertise, Mr Pritchard seems unable or
unwilling to address the matters at hand. His "assessment" only
quotes certain parts of my complaint, conveniently those which he
finds easiest to refute. His claims of "assessment" are vague and
hide an almost complete lack of examination.
While this report is incorrect in almost every detail, it is clear
that JG King will see it as a reason not to make any concessions
whatsoever. As a result, subject to your confirmation of this
assumption, I see no reason to proceed with your conciliation
attempts. All that they have brought so far has been a disadvantage
both for me and for clear, level-headed analysis of the problems.
In the following, I refer to my document of 18 July 2017, which you
copied into the report. I see no reason to believe that there was any
textual error in copying the text, but it's easier for me to refer to
what I wrote.
1. The cooktop. I documented cases where the location of the cooktop
caused flame damage, and demonstrated it to Mr. Pritchard. He
omitted both of these details from the report.
Similarly, I showed him the manufacturer's documentation for the
flame adjustment, and gave him a copy of the document. He
dismissed the documentation, which was clearly intended as a guide
for adjustment, as an "artist's impression". He also did not
mention this in his report.
He did not mention the third objection at all.
His reference to "relevant provisions" is no such thing. It
refers to cooktops mounted near combustible surfaces, which is not
applicable here. I find it hard to believe that there are no
provisions for minimum distances from non-combustible surfaces,
though I have not been able to find any. Even the standard that
he quotes specifies relevant details that he didn't mention
(thickness of the tiling, which he didn't measure).
2. The range hood is clearly defective. I had expected to see some
kind of measurement of air flow. Instead, he repeated what the
previous tradesmen had done, but worse: he held a sheet of my A4
paper against the middle filter, thus dirtying it. As I said in
the complaint, I have no use for a noisy paper holder. In
addition, unlike the previous trademan, he did not even check this
with the side panels, where the problems are worst.
He then put his head into the roof space to examine the bends in
the ducting. He only found the ducting at all with the help of
the JG King people, though it should have been obvious where it
was. He didn't find the bends, so he took a photo of a straight
part of the ducting, which was not under dispute. When he came
down, he did not replace the manhole cover, as I discovered by
chance some time later.
He did ask how I measured the air flow, and I explained it. He
had never heard of an anemometer, and I had to spell the word for
him. But none of this made it to the report.
Finally, he claims:
The assessment was carried out in December 2017 and the hand
over date was April 2015, therefore the range hood is also
outside the maintenance period.
He seems to be confusing certificate of occupancy and handover.
On the day the certificate of occupancy was issued, the range hood
had not yet been installed. And the date of assessment is
irrelevant: the relevant date is when I first raised the issue
with JG King, which happened (in writing) no later than 22 days
after handover.
3. He had difficulty with the floors. Reading the plan, he had
understood that the floors were wooden, though they were clearly
marked as vinyl. While we were there, Evan Dower commented that
the reason why the levels were the same in the display houses--one
of the issues I mentioned--was because they were different
flooring materials. This supports my claim that it should have
been mentioned in the contract. But Mr. Pritchard did not see fit
to note this detail.
Measuring the unevenness of the floor was simple: he didn't.
Instead he brought a laser level with a resolution of 2 mm and
measured the slope of a different part of the floor, something
that I hadn't complained about. When I asked him to check the
area to which I was referring, he told me that that wouldn't be
necessary, since he had his measurements (and quoted 5 mm, not the
4 mm that he wrote into the report). Given the inherent
inaccuracy of 2 mm, this information is meaningless.
4. The double glazing is a contractual issue. There was no dispute
as to the nature of the glazing that was installed. Nevertheless
he checked the glass and found it to be as we had all said.
Regarding the contract, he checked the plans. Between him and the
three people from JG King, it took them 10 minutes to work out the
code that they use, such as PAW1527.DG and SSD2115 LOWER. They
came to the conclusion that the former meant "double glazed" and
the latter meant "Low E". The difficulty they had interpreting
this code shows how inappropriate it is to make it part of the
contract. I assert that contracts should be in English.
In addition, as we had discussed (but he found not worth
reporting), none of this means that the Low E glazing should not
be double glazed. Evan Dower repeated his claim that
double-glazed Low E would be too heavy for the doors, and
Mr. Pritchard agreed. But then Evan noted that they only
installed it in commercial buildings. This makes no sense to me:
firstly, the side panels are also single-glazed, and if it can be
installed in commercial premises, the issue is cost, not weight.
The report states:
The assessment revealed that the glazing to the sliding doors
was SINGLE GLAZED [my emphasis] Low E glass as required on the
contract document drawings and energy report.
This is ridiculous. He doesn't mention the contract itself, nor
the detail that double glazing and Low E are not mutually
exclusive. There is no mention of "single glazed" in the
documents that I have signed. And it's difficult to find an
honourable reason for why he should not have mentioned the clause
in the contract.
Finally, to illustrate his understanding of the issue, he told me
that single Low E glazing has 80% of the thermal protection of
double glazing even against cold. This is patently ridiculous. I
explained some of the basics of heat transfer, which appeared to
be new to him, and I offered to show him an example where the
doors misted up heavily while the double glazed windows remained
dry. He declined.
In summary, I find your assessor unqualified, incompetent and
superficial. Given his report and the undeniable fact that he is a
builder, it's hard to avoid that conclusion that he'd rather decide in
favour of his mates. DBDRV should perform an internal review of this
matter.
Please don't call me on the phone any more. I am extremely angry over
this matter, and it would help me keep my temper to correspond in
writing.
Please:
- Let me know whether you intend to perform an internal review. I am
available for further discussion with people genuinely interested in
improving your services.
- After confirmation that JG King is not prepared to make any
concession, issue me with whatever documentation I need to proceed
to VCAT.
- Let me know where I can address a formal complaint about this
matter, and in what form.
Greg Lehey
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA